intresting idea. actually never seen such ideas implemented yet, unless semi/strategic game Majesty where you can make a "rewards" for compelteing your tasks and "independant" heroes will either take or no take your proposal. hovewer whole mechanism wasn't much elegant.

im afraid such approach will be interested only for few scenarios, maybe im wrog, but it seems to be little boring if you cant manage thats good..

some kind of a game when you cant make direct orders to your units was a very good scenario at Warcraft 3 (if you familar with that) - Castle Defend. In thiat game you had to make special buildings which were generating troops, but main factor there was your choice of units at every stage of the game and how to counter other units of the enemy.. still not what you meaning but nice game

Logged

Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

I would like to select a unit or brigade, select a position on the battlefield and give the order (for example) Take that position and hold it!Then ofcourse the unit/units would try to execute that command.

Already in the making The order as right now system contains different types of attack and engage subtypes, one of which is attacking a position with the intention of holding it.

Quote

And even more lovely would be if I got regular reports back, describing their progress.Let's say that the attack failed or sustained heavy casualties, and the troops requested support/reserves-and then I could (if I wanted) select new units and ask them to support that previous command!

Also within the scope of the current order system. Another order is called "support", which does exactly what you request, that is, sends the ordered unit away to defend (that is, support) the target friendly unit.

I can give you a short and simplified rundown of the order system architecture (pseudo-code warning):

| Order (abstract)| SettingOrder | ... all orders that sets unit parameters| TargetOrders (abstract)| Approach (takes an unit or position as parameter)| Engage (takes an unit or position as parameter)| Defend (takes an unit or position as parameter)

I'm still reading into the WARTBED program but I'm excited about it . Gameplay above graphix!

Now I don't have a real background into the warhammer games and their workings, but I suspect a few ideas outside of those type of games wouldn't be amiss.

My first suggestion has already been mentioned somewhat: Keep it simple enough. Every unit needs to be intuitive in it's use. When you select it, you should know instantly what it can and can't do. If it has abilities they would be easy to use with as little selecting and targeting as possible.Games like the lates Tiberium Wars and Red Alert 3 failed in that respect. Every single unit had a different ability, most of them not very intuitive and it's hell to use a mixed-army ability.

Second: give every unit a 'fortify' command. Each regiment has their own bonus gotten from it.Example: Pikemen dig in their pikes and ready themselves for a Cavalry attack. If charged by Cavalry the Pikemen get a bonus attack and damage for the first round.Normal footsoldiers get ready to deflect incoming arrows with their shields and whatnot.Any ballistics team sets up their stuff. Archers put arrows in the ground in front of them style or something to fire faster. Other groups could prepare fire-arrows for bigger damage potentials.Bad stuff of fortify is that it takes longer for units to get moving again. Pikemen need to drag pikes out of the ground, Bowmen etc need to extinguish their fires and/or put arrows back in their packs, footmen need to get better bearings after lowering their shields etc.

Third: Siege battles.Especially nice in case of multi-team games. But absolutely possible in small fortresses. Allow one team to assault a fortification. This can be a full-fledged castle, with mounts where your artillery can be placed, others could be small outposts. Nothing more then a few wooden walls or even just a hill with a circular ditch at the top to slow down enemies, and anything in between. While full-fledged siege warfare with ladders, giant towers and rams would be great I think it's best to keep it simple: Doors and gates can be broken down with simply attacking it, perhaps place a few items on the ground that can function as oil or tar that can be used to burn the gates down or function as a Ram item, basicly just giving them a large bonus attack when in 'combat' with gates.Futher get a few routes into the fortress. Some elevations and special spots for archers to besiege enemy attackers, both outside and inside the gates. Allow infantry to go through small gaps between buildings (if attacked while going through a gap it counts as a flank or rear attack) while mounted divisions are forced around the bigger paths inside the fortress.

Fourth: Terrain obstaclesFrom what I understand, maps will have a much larger scale. This opts for much more refined obstacles, from a small group of trees to entire forested area's. Rocks, jagged peaks, rips in the ground, rivers, lakes, bridges (destroyable?), battles inside villages with houses and narrow streets where smaller regiments can move much faster.Allow for destroyables! Burn down houses (stay clear or you might burn a few of your own), break down bridges to prevent flanks, trample high-grass to get more vision (in fact, a whole map filled with high grass where you can't see any enemy until you are on top of them... Trample grass in stragetic swathes and set up scouts watching them, set up archers nearby that can cover the swathes and you can spring ambushes, would be great!)

Fifth: tactical retreat.Currently any fleeing regiment is pancaked instantly. I would rather have a system underneath to allow for skirmishers to hit&run.Imagine this: You attack an enemy regiment in H2H combat. But you want to disengage. You can rout your troops manually. At this point a few things are taken into consideration.1: speed of both groups. The faster the routing group is compared to the enemy, the more likely they will not 'rout' but 'tactical retreat'2: Current morale of the routing group. Once routing starts, a morale check is needed. If they fail the check they will rout and flee, if they succeed they will go into 'tactical retreat'. Having higher speed then the enemy boosts their morale.3: if necessary, the enemy team can complete part of it's last combat phase and deal damage as the regiment retreats.4: A regiment in tactical retreat will be able to receive orders, but has a penalty on pathing until they regroup.

Once in tactical retreat, they will run away from the enemy regiment. They will not flee the battle and when attacked by another regiment will act as if they weren't fleeing. A regiment caught in a tactical retreat will have a penalty on strength in the first combat round.

What would this accomplish? You would create the possibility to create real skirmishers and hit&run melee regiments. Skirmisher infantry groups could get a large benefit when charging, 2 attacks the first round for instance instead of one or a good strength bonus. After the initial attack they can retreat and regroup somewhere else for a new attack.Cavalry groups with lances would be able to act more like middle-age knights, who would sometimes charge in, disengage en charge again once they created enough distance.While effective, there are ofcourse enough drawbacks to make it something tactical and not spammable. If your morale fails you have a fleeing regiment that can be crushed underfoot. If you manage to catch a regiment in tactical retreat you are probably attacking them in the flank or rear. Lastly, a regiment in tactical retreat will not regroup instantly. So if you disengage in a multi-regiment battle to get some extra attacks in you will have to wait for it to reform before you can engage again. If you make it so that it takes at least one up to two battlerounds before they reform you are effectively losing possible attacks in the battle.

Another suggestion:In the data sheet it is opted to have units size determine their solidity and/or power.You could add in something like Size+armour. Armour is affected by the creature size. So a creature size 10 (in a scale 1-100) is a small Goblin. 30 a Human. 60 a Human on a horse. 70 a Giant and 100 is something truly massive and heavy.The bigger something is, the more weight is added for each additional armor. A giant carrying a shield won't be carrying a goblin shield. So the final result of solidity, required to determine if they can be pushed back, would be the size and armour combined. An unarmoured human is much lighter and easier to push back then the same human in full plate and shield that is heavier then the human carrying it. Not to mention the added weight on a full-clad giant...